Blog Entry

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:57 am
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

In his Friday column, our CBS Sports colleague Tony Barnhart reported that SEC commissioner Mike Slive had told him the "full cost of attendance" scholarship plan recently championed by the Big Ten's Jim Delany was "something he would like to discuss."

But speaking to the Birmingham News's Jon Solomon over the weekend, Slive made it clear he'd like to do a lot more with those scholarships than just discuss them:
"I think we're to a point now in intercollegiate athletics where we have been very fortunate to have developed significant revenue streams," Slive said Friday. "A lot of our student-athletes have significant needs and it's one of those issues whose time has come" ...

"Often times when I think of the foundation and basis of a lot of NCAA legislation, a lot of it tries to ensure a level playing field," Slive said. "It's an unattainable concept, but that's often the foundation. If you say the foundation ought to be student-athlete welfare, it's a different place for which to start thinking about full cost of attendance. Using that as the starting point, I think it's time for the national conversation to begin in a very serious way about the full cost of attendance."
Those statements about the NCAA and their legislative emphasis on a "level playing field" echo those already made by Delany--statements not-so-subtly intended as a shot across the bow to small-school opponents who would block their plans to aid BCS conference athletes in the name of competitive equality.

Delany and Slive clearly understand that full cost scholarships (an item far too expensive for most non-BCS leagues) would drive the finanical wedge even further between D-I athletics' haves and have-nots ... and they just as clearly do not care where their conferences' "student-athlete welfare" (and, surely, the attendant competitive advantage) is concerned.

There are still major impediments to the Delany plan; Title IX may legally guarantee the same scholarship funds for all varsity athletes, not just those in revenue sports, and such a plan would have to be approved by a vote of the entire NCAA membership. (That Mark Emmert supports full cost scholarships would seem to be a big help in clearing the second hurdle.) But with such powerful backers as Delany, Slive, and the NCAA president, there seems little question this issue (and the potential FBS-shattering fallout) is going to get the "discussion" Slive wants sooner rather than later.

Since: Mar 26, 2010
Posted on: May 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

This is a bad idea.  Maybe these kids DO need a little extra money, but not just athletes.  What about academic scholarships?  These are the people who will be doing things that matter.  They are just as entitled as the athletes, even if they're not the ones on TV.  I just think its going to stir up a lot of crap.  Is it really worth it? 

Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: May 23, 2011 2:44 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Looks like the SEC if following the B10 once again. 

Since: Apr 29, 2009
Posted on: May 23, 2011 2:16 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Even playing field is a joke.  It will boil down to the 'haves and have nots.' 

On another tangent - will this include the non-revenue sports as well?  And what about Title IX?  Girls volleyball and softball?  Will they get $3000 a year in addition to their scholarships?  Who will track how they spend this money?  Wouldn't a voucher system work better?  Maybe if some of these players passed on the ridiculous bling they wear, they could afford to buy a pair of jeans and a polo shirt.

Since: Oct 1, 2006
Posted on: May 23, 2011 1:19 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

There has to be an even playing field.  Playes on scholarship don't realize how good they have it.  While some students have wealthy parents subsidizing their education and social funds the majority of students do not have this luxury.  Right now the players get a free education and are subsidized an awful lot as their books, housing, and food is paid for.  If these players want more they can ask their parents for an allowance.  These players are not dealing with hardships, their expectations are out of whack.  If the players want to have extra money for partying than that is not the responsibliity of the state or the University.  If need be these scholarship student athletes should be allowed to take out loans just like other students with the understanding of paying them back after they have completed their education or time in school.  This way everyone wins. 

Since: Aug 23, 2007
Posted on: May 23, 2011 1:19 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

 <span style="color: #000000;">I agree with you somewhat.  However, watch 'Pony Express' 30 for 30 on ESPN.  Those fans in the old SWC had 0 problems pulling for their 'pro' teams.

Since: May 23, 2011
Posted on: May 23, 2011 12:19 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

I have a hunch the NCAA and colleges are on the road to ruin here.

Kids who are taking out  $100,000 + loans with poor prospect for jobs after graduation are eventually oging ot wake up and wonder why the oclleges aren't using that money to reduce tuition instewad of igving it ot players woh already go for free and have every conceivable advantage.

Don't be surprised when the face painting and cheering starts becomming a bit more subdied and there is an eventual backlash.

If you want to support your pro team that's one thing but getting all emotional about professional athletes who your School hired is sometihng else..

Since: May 23, 2011
Posted on: May 23, 2011 12:04 pm

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Well, what are the Big 10 bashers going to do know that God's confernece is on board??

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or